jim.croft at gmail.com
Sat Sep 26 14:10:59 CDT 2009
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 5:22 PM, <dipteryx at freeler.nl> wrote:
> This rather speaks of a database mentality?
and this is a good thing, yes? ;)
> "In texts aimed
> at non taxonomists (field guides, red data lists, quarantine
> lists etc)" these "potentially confusing homonyms", if any
> exist at all, will be so few as not being worth listing
> (again, that is the whole purpose of nomenclature).
These lists are probably the sorts of taxonomic products that unsettle
me the most. They are lists of names purporting to be lists of
unambiguous and inviolate species entities/concepts but in most cases
there is no way to connect one with the other, other than to assume
they are following the prevailing taxonomic wisdom. Which of course
might change next week.
In our case these lists are part of legislation and thus inherit power
far greater than the science and semantics behind them.
It is all a bit of a worry...
On the other hand, if the names in question were linked online to a
documented taxonomy circumscribing the intended concept/entity, which
was in turn connected to a populated disambiguator, all would be sweet
and peace and harmony would rule the earth. :)
Jim Croft ~ jim.croft at gmail.com ~ +61-2-62509499 ~
... in pursuit of the meaning of leaf ...
... 'All is leaf' ('Alles ist Blatt') - Goethe
More information about the Taxacom